In the tradition of Nolan who did the Bat villains by going back to the original source then modernizing them, let's discuss how they could portray the WW villains in her future movie and do them RIGHT.

I'll start with Dr. Psycho:

He was inspired by Lon Chaney, the man with 1,000 faces. So, the actor must be a short man, with creepy mean eyes. And he must be able to "become anyone".

I vote Martin Klebba.

I would prefer if a Wonder Woman movie stuck with the greek pantheon stuff honestly.

If we're assuming that there will be a trilogy then I wouldn't want the whole thing to exclusively deal with the gods. I say have the first film and the last one center around the gods but change things up with a virtually godless film for the second movie.

i hope she fight Ares as the main villian in her first movie Cheetah second movie and i don't know for 3rd.

Yep, I agree. The best way to do it would be to have it be about all of the greek mythology stuff and then the only real link to the other stuff would be Steve Trevor's role in the movie. Similar to the animated Wonder Woman movie from a few years ago.

If we are talking about a trilogy, I would prefer there is a greater story connecting them. As such, I would have no problem with the first movie if a Dr. Psycho, Cheetah, Heracles or Circe that had dominated the movie proved to be only a servant of a malicious Olympian and the source of their power.

Imagine the kind of post-credits Avengers scene at the end of the first movie: Circe lies defeated along with the Cheetah and Hecate is watching from a pool of water. "Oh, such a pity." She mutters as a dark shape looms over her.

"Your tool has failed, Hecate. Now the Lion will have it's share." It rumbles and an armored hand holds out a glowing orb, showing the head of a lion before it shows the man wearing it.

@outside_85: THIS ... At least in concept. I hope they stay away from Herculese as a villain to be honest, people won't really get that since he's typically portrayed as a hero, and the Rock just played him... Stick with Ares as a villain from Olympus IMO

@csg_cl: Which is why he would actually make a great villain. Imagine the public recieving him as the hero they remember him as, only to realize that it was Diana they should have listened to. Kinda like the Who is Wonder Woman? story, just without Circe and every single of Diana's mortal enemies.

@outside_85: maybe, or could backfire and have the movie going audience upset that a "beloved hero" has been demonized. Most of these people aren't going to know much about Heracles from Greek Myth or from WW so they will be coming only from a history of movies and TV shows.

@csg_cl: May I point you to this?

Untill that came along, Malficent was one of Disney's most evil characters, without a redeeming bone in her body.

So making Heracles a villain who's only remembered for his good deeds isn't impossible.

@outside_85 said:

@csg_cl: May I point you to this?

Untill that came along, Malficent was one of Disney's most evil characters, without a redeeming bone in her body.

So making Heracles a villain who's only remembered for his good deeds isn't impossible.

Taking a villain and giving them a heroic new back story is a totally different thing than taking a 3000+ year old myth of one of the greatest heros in western culture and portraying him as a villainous rapist. Redemption stories will always play well (even though I hated Maleficent) ... and there have already been several Hercules movies in the last few years so it's a gamble putting him in anyway.

Thing is that Maleficent wasn't a redemption story, it was a revenge movie, Disneys answer to Kill Bill (Jolie herself has been quite clear what she meant her waking up post-mutilation was equalling). And it's not at all different, not from where I am sitting :)

Plus Heracles has been a villanous rapist in the WW mythos for 80 years. And 3000 years if you recall the two other fates of Hippolyta other than accidentally getting killed... I won't presume getting cheated and beaten in a fight would in anyway endear Hippolyta to any of the people who did it.

Maleficent was a bad example of a Disney attempt to be "dark" ... and it's still a story about a villain painted in a hero's light ... way more acceptable to making a hero into a hard-core villain. Hercules is one of the most well known heroes in all of western civilization and he's had dozens of movies and TV shows portraying him as the saviour etc ... even in Greek myths his misdeeds were eventually redeemed and he was seen as worthy to ascend to Olympus.

You are also overstating his role as a villain in WW's history IMO ... while he was a villain in the GA and SA he was always more of a cartoonish oaf than an evil rapist, used as a male contrast to WW and the times ensured they skipped over any kind of rape detail until Post-Crisis Era when he was redeemed at the same time as he was demonized, Perez brilliantly showed him as the rapist of Hippolyta then immediately redeemed him in the same story arc! He's barely been a factor in WW comics since Perez sent him packing back to Olympus in the late 1980s. I love the idea you are getting at, I'd just use Ares as the villain (or even First Born).

He's had half a dozen movies made by people who haven't read the full story and instead based their versions on the romantic version where you dont normally mention that he killed his wife and kids or that most of his mythic labors had to be done because he gravely insulted powerful people. He was allowed to acend to Olympus... ok need I remind you that Olympus is not heaven and the people who live there are far from benevolent? Being allowed to live up there was not a sign of redemption or personal piety, it was Hera finally giving up killing him if Zeus ever looked away.

No he wasn't. Athena & Co. asked Hippolyta and those who followed her to forgive and forget before they could move to Themyscira, the rest rode off and founded Bana-Mighdall eventually. Heracled eventually ended up condemned to Tartarus for 3000 years or so.

While I wouldn't mind the First Born playing the role of stand-in, I dont think he is the right choice, the character has zero gravitas to anyone who is not reading Azzarello's run, and on screen, most people would be asking why they didn't just use Heracles if they wanted a semi-unstoppable mountain of a man. Also it sounds better on paper that Diana deafeated Heracles for the reasons you highighted. :)

I say First Born or Ares. Would like them to build up to Ares, but wouldn't mind him as the villain in the first movie.

In the second Perez arc (I believe it's about issue 14) he was freed from his punishment (supporting the weight of Paradise Island for eternity) by Diana and Hippolyta fell in love with him after the Themysciran Amazon's granted him forgiveness and he became the first man to set foot on Paradise Island.

I am very aware that the version of Hercules that appears in Hollywood is a sanitized version. However the majority of the viewing public is not aware, they view him as the greatest hero of classical greek mythology. Portraying him in a WW movie as a villain is risking alienation. But you are wrong about ascension to Olympus ... that was a rather literal story of Hercules earning his birthright. Certainly the god of Olympus were not perfect, and no Olympus was not a heaven, but godhood earned was meant to be seen as a great deed something that set Hercules above his demi-god siblings. If you were to ask the average person on the street who Hercules was you would probably get a unanimous HERO response unless you happened upon one of us WW fans. Even then you would probably get the HERO answer before you got "raper of Hippolyta and subjugator of the Amazons".

@outside_85:

@teerack:

Yeah, and we all know how POORLY that animated movie did!

Having it all about Greek Mythology? NOT!

If any WW fans out there don't know already (with all the information provided by WW experts over the last few years, including Jill Lepore), WW is a superhero built on psychology and feminism. While the Greek Mythology was simply the "dressing".

Though I do like "Outside-85's" idea of having the iconic villains be the tools of the evil gods. That storyline reminds me of a script belonging to Marston scholar Brett Jett that he shared years ago. Its the same concept.

As for Hercules, he's always been simply a tool for Ares, and not a real villain by himself.

@natvin: The Greek Mythology is the coolest part of WW and taking it away or limiting it makes me loose pretty much all interest in the movie. The New 52 WW series had a huge focus on the Greek pantheon and it was the most interesting the character has been in decades.

I would kick off the trilogy with Ares because I think it's important to begin with a powerful male antagonist. The sequel would be based around the new 52 where a shrunken Ares is redeemed and then sacrificed so Wonder Woman can seize his mantle. In the third, Strife and Circe work in conjunction to avenge Ares and the First Born whom Circe was completely smitten with.

Maleficent is a response to Kill Bill? I took the said scene as betrayal but now I see it was intended to be a metaphor for rape. Is this somehow connected to Beatrix being rapped in the hospital while in her coma ? Beatrix was a cold-blooded assassin though who survived an attempted assassination by the love of her life, she'd "lost her wings" (innocence) a bloody long time ago.

As I've already said, 1st movie: Ares in a loose adaptation of Gods and Mortals, 2nd is Circe and further develops the character of Barbara Minerva, 3rd is Cheetah and the Bana Mighdall.

Why the flying f#€k would you have the Azzarello run as the first or even second movie? The whole point of that run is going against the pre established continuity in fan's minds, continuity that the general public doesn't have. That's like finding out that someone is adopted, but you don't even know the person yourself.

And who the crap wants Heracles as a villain? That's stupid!

Also, the only one who should ever play Dr. Psycho is Peter Dinklage.

@gjgp27: She will debut in Dawn of Justice as the daughter of Zeus so I think the point was to put the days when Wonder Woman's mythos used to be a feminist utopia behind us actually

@foamborn: Not directly. When I mentioned Kill Bill, it was because the two movies share themes of the main character being betrayed and then goes on a rampage against the people responsible.

And... thats not terribly odd at all, falling in love with your own rapist. (Even with the passage of time it's unlikely Hippolyta has forgotten what he's like.)

I can only say you shouldn't be afraid to challenge the perception of your audience. Snyder made Superman break Zod's neck, and MoS is still (around here at least) still the most talked about superhero movie we've had. Using Herc's fame as an initial cover could work so well for this movie. Imagine Diana establishing herself as a hero in the first movie, then in the second movie, Heracles appears and tells the world that: "That is no hero! Those Amazons were barbarians! You wouldn't believe what they did to captives!" People will ofc fall for it, it's Herc, the hero god everyone hears about in school. And then it turns out people only remembered the good things about him, while forgetting he also happens to be a a lot of very unpleasant things.

You mean aside from the likes of Apollo, Artemis, Dionysus who were all demi-gods and didn't have to go through the same bother to be accepted.

To be honest, I don't really care about the 'average man's' opinion in this case, because it is DC's version of him we are dealing with, not Disney's, not Dwayne Johnson's, Lou Ferrigno's or the one from the 1800'dreds and DC's is a villain, which has been proven over and over again.

Wonder Woman was not based around feminism. That is like saying she based around victimizing women appose to empowering them. Feminist are stupid people who aren't interested in equality but are eager to invent new ways for little girls to feel bad about themselves by labeling everyone they can a victim effectively fighting against female empowerment lol.

I would be interested in hearing how you think she is based on psychology.

Fun Fact: Wonder Woman as actually a character based around sex and originally had 16+ panels of women getting tied up EVERY issue and to this day Wonder Woman has never sold as good as it did back when it was shameless objectification.

Wonder Woman in the past 30 years as been redefined and established as a symbolic strong empowered woman, and way they did that was deeply exploring her warrior ideology which all stems out of the mythology. She is in a lot of ways very similar to Thor strictly in terms of concept.

Realistically

1st film - ares basically adapt primary elements of the 09 film just add details that they HAD a mentor/trainer relationship when she was young and there relationship shattered when he wanted her to use rage she did not have in Herself.

have ares be more deep and less flat villain he was in 09. Have him use EXACTLY the outfit he had in injustice by David yardin

2nd film - pull back have it be a manhunt chase film with wondy attempting to catch and redeem the cheetah on a globe spanning chase have her dealing with super hero stuff and mythological stuff (Greek and others) in equal measure.

3rd Film - her teaming with God's of Olympus and others to stop cronos from destroying the multiverse (have cronos look exactly as he did in pre new 52 comics and have his trade mark scythe)

Unrealistically

Have faora break Thru the barrier between the Phantom zone and exhaust her self, have her falsely make a case to wonder woman that zod took advantage of her love for her race and that she was manipulated.

Have wondy take her back to paradise island to heal away from the world that believes her to be genocidal. Hera/stryiff/Apollo? Secretly powers her up in exchange for her loyalty. Faora continues this mask of weakness all while gaining the amazons trust and Manipulating some of them along with pretending to become friends with Diana all so she can eventually accomplish her true goal of avenging herself on superman.

Really give traue and gal a chance to Act!

And it being a mostly all female cast would be something a lot would like.

altho Some would be pissed about them using a superman villain for a wonder woman film I think it would be worth it.

@teerack: Yes, Wonder Woman was in factbased around proto FEMINISM!

The "stupid people" feminists you're talking about are the modern feminists, from Gloria Steinem onward. The feminism of Marston's day was different.

As for the psychology, you're WRONG. I don't "think" WW is based on psychology. I knowfor a FACT that she is!

Obviously you haven't done your reading on the character. It used to be that the public didn't know much about the inner workings of Marston's WW. But today, there's no excuse. There are plenty of articles and other pieces out there written about Marston's original design of WW. The latest one is an entire BOOK, by Jill Lepore.

Pick it up. Read it.

Then you'd know how wrong you are. including how you think that its a "fun fact" that she's bsed around sex. She isn't. The eroticism inherent in her original comics was one element of the character that was BUILT on Marston's philosophical psychology and proto-feminism.

Again, pickup a book or article. And READ, READ, READ

@natvin: So in other words I asked you to explain why you think WW is based on psychology and you wrote a big post trying to distract away from the fact that you can't back up your statement or explain yourself by just saying I haven't read enough?

I'm not sure if trying to argue classic Wonder Woman wasn't sexist makes me sad and want to pat you on the back and try to boost your self esteem, or just laugh. (Sorry I'm a dick)

To me you sound like you're kind of destroying your credibility by making it clear you just let other people teach you what "your" opinion should be and don't actually come to conclusions on your own. There are infinite ways to interpret literature and there have been lots of different analysis of classic comics for example the idea that Superman is a being with the power of a god and he uses Clark Kent to hide among us, but what is Clark Kent? Cowardly, unattractive, insecure/not confident, weak, etc. You could argue that Clark Kent is how Superman precises the human race. It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't actually mean it's true or that it's the only way to interpret things.

Regardless this whole discussion is moot and irrelevant when talking about what the WW movie should be like. Wonder Woman is just like Thor in the sense that there are a ton of fans that loved Thor on Earth and don't like the Asgard stuff, and a lot of fans who are the opposite who love Thor in Asgard and don't like him on earth. Wonder Woman is the same where some people prefer stuff dealing with the human world and others prefer her dealing with mythology. Neither one of them is more validated then the other they are just two different sides of the character.

^^ OK folks, let's continue on with this topic, while disregarding the 12 year olds who are obviously allowed free reign over their parents' computers.

Now, with the villain Cheetah. How can we retain her essence in film? What are her main points?

Oh, to be teenage and get personally offend on the internet at people for not agreeing with your close minded point of view. I miss when I was that simple. :)

I think the best way they could make a movie with Cheetah as the main and only villain work is by focusing on her as Minerva a lot. Maybe have a good chunk of the movie be WW and Minerva becoming friends, and then she ends up betraying her and becoming Cheetah for the final fight in the end.

I'm not so sure a betrayal story would work so great as the main focus thought and I'm not sure if she could really generate enough story for a movie. I don't know how many Wonder Woman movies they are going to make but I think she would work better in the sequel so she could be built up in the first one to the moment where she becomes Cheetah.

As far as I am concerned, Cheetah really does work best as someone else's muscle. And I say this due to how she, in her powered form, is the opposite of Diana in the form of culture vs savagery. The problem is that villains of that sort only really work well on their own, if they are more powerful than the hero, and more often than not, Cheetah is not even half as powerful as Diana. They are good henchmen for more cerebral villains, because they can just point them to where their abilities are used best, or as a compensation for their own physical shortcomings.

I've said it before and I can do it again:

Circe could be the cerebral/in charge villain of a movie, she has her brains and her magic, Cheetah provides the raw muscle. And with Circe's reputation for animal/human hybrids, you dont have to bring in the weird plant-god. That said, I am not advocating we have Cheetah as a dumb brute (like Bane/Ivy), but it should be stressed that they have different powers and motivations. And if we go all Azzarello, we could have Cheetah first grow fear of Circe before betraying her in the end, wont have to mean she reforms, just that she's not interested in Circe's world.

Adapt the wonder woman new 52 story arc of first born and u got a winner

As long as the movies don't treat Cheetah as a C-list villain like the cartoons, I'm good

There is a big difference between challenging the perceptions of an audience and doing something that will outright alienate people. For example, just because there have been comic book stories in which Superman has gone evil (Injustice and Doomed being the obvious most recent) doesn't mean a movie going audience is going to like the idea of seeing it on the big screen. Same applies to Hercules ... movie going audiences are acclimated to Kevin Sorbo, Dwayne Johnson and Kit Harington playing heroic and even loveable Hercules characters ... there is a whole generation of adults who pretty much only know Hercules as a Disney hero. Portraying him as a raping, murdering, lead villain isn't challenging the perceptions of an audience, it's taking a name from a famous character they think they know (and almost certainly love), and pissing on it.

Why take that risk when they have many options such as Ares, First Born and Hades right in front of them? DCs version is by far the least well known version of the character as he appears in a handful of comics read by maybe as many as 50,000 people ... even if he appeared in every issue of every DC comic for a year as the main villain of the DC universe, he wouldn't have 1/10th the exposure the character got from Kevin Sorbo or Dwayne Johnson. This is for cinema which mean it is for an audience dramatically broader than WW's (or DCs) comic reading fan base ... staying true to the comics for a handful of devotees isn't going to be likely and if it backfires that's the end of a WW franchise. Probably for at least 15 years.

well to be fair, Thor is very similar to WW ... she's been around for decades longer than he has :)

WW was in a way created as a symbol of feminism ... her creator had very strong roots with the feminist movement (WW was at least partially the idea of Margaret Sanger an early feminist leader). Marsters was quoted on many occasions as believing women should run the world. Feminism gets a bad rap these days because of a handful of radical thinkers throughout the years, but in reality the movement is no different than any other equal rights movement when you talk to the average individual who is part of the fight.

We readers of DC have accepted Heracles as a villain for the past 80 years and no one here is throwing a massive fit over it, so I really can't see why people who barely know about Diana should be all that upset, especially not when it's far more accurate of the actual myth than the other versions. Especially not when we are otherwise so open to see heroes and villains change roles.

Because none of them are Heracles, thats the reason why.

And if you dont want to take any risks with a movie thats been delayed for decades simply because it's headline is a woman, you may as well not bother making it at all and just have a Carter-marathon.What you are aruging here is similar to asking for Lex Luthor to be a good guy because his actual persona would insult the wealthy 1%.

And again: It's a DC-movie that takes place within a version of the DCU, so there is no reason why Heracles should be turned into a saint here because he's like that elsewhere.

I'm actually making the exact opposite argument. I'm saying you don't pander to the 1% who accept that he is a villain for fear of offending the 99% who see him as one of the great heros. You are actually making the argument to not insult the 1% ... in fact, you are making it sound like 80 years of WW comics are actually relevant in today's movie viewing world ... you need to discount basically the first 50 years since 99% of those readers didn't actually have the same Hercules as post-crisis (and the majority of them are dead or not going to see a movie anyway) then look at the tiny relative readership over the last 30 years. You are assuming that because a fringe comic book audience has accepted a version of Hercules that the majority of the public will also accept it. What it boils down to is I think it's unnecessary to use Hercules when they have other options that don't need to be an uphill battle.

I'm also NOT saying to avoid risk, I'm saying to be smart. Using Ares or Hades or First Born takes nothing away from the main protagonist and offers more flexibility in storytelling (especially First Born who is a new character). Not to mention it's been decades since Hercules was even villain in WW books! He's been all but gone since the 1980s anyway. Why use him even IF it wasn't a risk? She has other options that work much better for her long time fan base.

I only meant similar to Thor in concept where they waver between mythology and modern super heroics. Some fans like Thor on earth but not the Norse mythology stuff, while some like the Norse mythology but not the earth stuff. Wonder Woman is a character with the same kind of thing happens where some people like the earth stuff and not the mythology while some like the mythology and not the earth stuff.

They are also meant to be the warriors of old type character.

I'm talking purely conceptual.

A little bit more back on the original topic I think a good thing to bring back from the GA with Cheetah is her split personality. Her good self and evil self would even talk to each other in the mirror. I think they could use this although make it more about her being possessed by some cheetah god. When she looks at herself in the mirror we see the full blown fur covered cheetah, and the actual her is just wearing a costume.

I know, I was just busting your chops a little :)

They could even go a step further and have her call one personality Barbara and the other Pricilla :P

@csg_cl: Pricilla is possessed by the African totem spirit of Ba Rab'A

@muffin_sangria: LMAO ... I love this for so many reasons :)

@muffin_sangria: And let's not forget to fulfill EVERY part of her core essence, which is jealousy. She has low self esteem. Is jealous of WW. Her evil self then comes out.

Well the core motivation of pretty much all of Wonder Woman's female villains is jealousy over how pretty, popular, or powerful Diana is. With that in mind whenever I'm trying to re-imagine one of them I tend to play down that aspect of them.

I'd rather that part of them was next to non-existent, because to me it just seems extremely petty that their motivation is that Diana is better than them at something. Let them have motivations that are independent of what Diana is or does.

@outside_85: then why wud Diana fight them?